04 March 2013

Own Our Failures to Uphold the Constitution

“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or of France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”

- Thomas Jefferson

By Brian Vanyo

On March 1, 1781, the American people ratified the Articles of Confederation to officially establish the United States
of America. This was kind of a big deal then, but it’s not something we
celebrate today — remarkably, the birthday of our union doesn’t even
merit a calendar entry as a simple reminder of its historical
significance.

All for good reason, of course: the Articles of Confederation was an
abject failure. The aim of government in America, as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, was to preserve the people’s natural rights
to life, liberty, and property. The Articles, however, created a
national government that was much too weak to accomplish this end.

In fact, the Articles really didn’t create a national government; it
established a “league of friendship” among the 13 sovereign states. Each
state, no matter how large or small, had a single vote in Congress, and
a two-thirds majority was needed to pass all laws. Although Congress
could enact legislation to manage “the general interests of the United
States,” it could do no more. It couldn’t implement or enforce the law,
and it couldn’t even collect taxes needed to repay debts accumulated
during the Revolutionary War. Due to the feeble nature of this
organization, the states often acted in their self-interests, and
weakness was projected abroad. In short order, the union was at risk of
dissolution.

So in the summer of 1787, the American people sent delegates to a
special convention in Philadelphia to address the shortcomings of the
Articles. The delegates ultimately decided that, to preserve the union
according to their ideals, they’d have to scrap the Articles altogether
and construct a new constitution. And so they did.

Our founding fathers understood that weak national governments in
confederacies had historically led to disunion and were therefore
incompatible with lasting liberty. But they also knew that the opposite
extreme was equally undesirable, for powerful centralized governments
were prone to corruption, abuse, and tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote,
“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government
which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating
all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats
of Russia or of France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”

Naturally, when the founders gave force to the federal government
under the new Constitution, they were very careful to avoid tipping the
scales of power too far toward tyranny. They had no intention to create
an overbearing centralized government. Instead, they increased federal
power only where necessary for it to perform its limited national
functions. James Madison explained:

The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which
are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The
former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace,
negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the
several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary
course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the
people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the
state.

This division of power between the federal and state governments was
meant to safeguard American liberty by forming “a double security to the
people,” according to Alexander Hamilton. He trusted that the people,
who would “hold the scales [of power] in their own hands,” would “always
take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the
general and state governments.” When necessary, the people could augment
the power of either government “by throwing themselves into either
scale. ... If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of
the other as the instrument of redress.”

The scales of power are nowhere near in balance today, because in the
last century we’ve been seduced by the progressive idea that the
federal government, if properly empowered, will better protect and care
for us. So we’ve let politicians and judges obliterate all limits in the
Constitution to expand the scope of federal power. As a result, we now
have a tax code that surpasses 67,000 pages and touches every kind of
productive activity, costing Americans at least $225 billion in
compliance costs each year. We now have more than 163,000 pages of
restrictive federal regulations that govern all sorts of activity and
burden Americans with hidden taxes totaling more than $1.75 trillion
each year. And we now have a national debt that exceeds $16 trillion,
due in large part to unconstitutional social welfare spending that first
began during the Progressive Era and now comprises close to 60 percent
of the federal budget.

Our wasteful and domineering government is failing its intended aim
to secure our natural rights, just as the Articles of Confederation did
so long ago. The difference, of course, is that the Articles failed to
secure these rights due to its weak and virtually nonexistent national
government, while our omnipotent and omnipresent federal government has
become the problem today.

Importantly, our Constitution is not the reason for the rise of our
authoritarian state — after all, it was designed with limits on federal
power. Our diminished liberty today results from our long tolerance of
illegitimate federal action taken by those abusing their power in
government. Thomas Jefferson aptly wrote that “certain forms of
government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in
the free exercise of their natural rights ... yet experience hath shewn,
that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in
time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

If we hope to honor the legacy of our founding and correct our
country’s current wayward course, then we must own up to our failures in
upholding the Constitution and begin enforcing its limits on federal
power. This is no easy task, but it can be done — for it has been done
before. Let our transition from the Articles of Confederation to the
Constitution serve as a reminder to us that, in spite of our failings,
we still have the power to effect real political change in the United
States. Our destiny as Americans is still ours to choose.

1 comment:

There is the possibility that the power may swing back a bit towards county government.

There is the newly formed Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

Last week I learned of Chief Kessler's call to citizens of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania to join him and his police department in putting together a “reserve force” to help defend his city in the event of a foreign invasion or, more precisely, an invasion of the Federal government to confiscate firearms. The proposed reserve force is now referred to as the Constitutional Security Force. While the details of how this proposed force would be organized have not been finalized, chapters have been organized in Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina and Kentucky. Information and links can be found here:

While legal challenges to unconstitutional laws and citizens peaceful rallies and demonstrations to show support for full constitutional rights are correct and necessary actions, a “show of force” and a display of an intent to resist may, many times, accomplish more if the other side of the issue is unreasonable. Unfortunately it did not work with Great Britain when their military, under government orders, tried to confiscate arms at Concord and Lexington resulting in war. But one can be hopeful the Constitutional Security Force’s presence would forestall violence from the federal or state governments to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.

Remember this, as I told the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the proposed Maryland gun control law, “Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this vital issue as is granted by the 1st Amendment and protected by the 2nd."